ASIC proposes naming AFSLs on breach dashboards
Financial planning licensees who report breaches to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) face being publicly named under a new regime being canvassed by the regulator.
ASIC has made clear in a new consultation paper (CP 383) that it intends publishing by Reportable Situations (RS) and Internal Dispute Resolution (IDR) at the firm level as well as industry level and will include firms’ names and licence numbers.
This represents a significant step up from ASIC’s current practice of publishing industry level rather than firm level data – something which has precluded the publication of firm names.
While ASIC is intended that firms be named in the new arrangements, it said that its dashboards would not include the names, licence number or submitted data of licensees who are individuals.
In broad terms, ASIC said it was consulting on publishing data elements covering the following key topics:
- about the licensee ;
- volume and nature of breaches;
- extent and impact of breaches;
- identification and investigation of breaches;
- remediation;
- rectification;
- and reporting practices.
ASIC’s consultation paper said that it intended to publish firm-level and RS and IDR data to:
:• enhance accountability and transparency, providing an incentive for improved behaviour;
- help firms and consumers identify areas where substantial numbers of significant breaches and IDR complaints are occurring; and
- allow firms to target their efforts to improve their compliance and consumer outcomes in those areas.
Announcing the release of the consultation paper, ASIC Commissioner, Alan Kirkland said he believed the publication of the proposed dashboard would boost transparency, drive improved performance and help deliver better consumer outcomes.
“Publishing Reportable Situations and Internal Dispute Resolution data will encourage firms to lift their game. It also provides consumers and investors access to this data at firm level, further encouraging confident and informed participation in the financial system,” Kirkland said.
This is just more of ASIC’s focus on vilifying and persecuting advisers rather than protecting consumers. ASIC is continually “nudging” consumers away from professional advice and towards harm. Every consumer that gets ripped off by a scam or unlicensed advice should be compensated by ASIC.
ASIC are pretty smart aren’t they. You do the right thing and report a breach you get named and shamed. If you breach and don’t report they only risk you have is that ASIC finds out ten years later if at all. ASIC then takes another ten years to investigate. In that time you phoenix the company so any compensation that need to be paid is from all other honest advisers via the CSLR. ASIC is so focused on running every adviser out of town that they have forgotten that they many duty is to protect consumers, something they have not done effectively in many decades.
Why? Wont this stop advisers and licensees reporting?
Can ASIC disclose to the public the people who provided them incomplete and misleading evidence about this financial planner regarding allege insurance churning. All they had to do was read the materials and PROPERLY investigate the bogus complaint, it’s not hard to read and understand.
ASIC, simply say “retraining and monitoring this financial planner was a better option considering the truth revealed” with 3 independent expert reports which coincides with this financial planner’s findings into the matter.
This is a Marriage of Justice for this person.
Did ASIC ever release their submission to the public regarding s99FA?
If not, why not?